|
The political representatives of the bourgeoisie gave even more attention to the question of local politics and local self-government in the course of looking for a way to save the nation and reform politics. They created systematic ideologies that included plans for local self-government. As early as 1900, China Weekly, the organ of the Revive China Association （Xing Zhong hui） stated, “To save China from destruction we should institute divided government （fenzhi）。” This solution. “rooted in feudalism and augmented with the local self-government institutions of the West, weighed everything ancient and modern in order to make a good plan for saving the age.”27 In 1901, Zhang Jian, a famous gentry-merchant from Nantong who later became a leading representative of the constitutionalists, wrote a book called A Critique of Reform. He advocated that China emulate the local self-government system of Japan, “establishing prefecture and county assemblies,” in order to put local self-government into effect.28 In 1902 Liang Qichao, who had fled abroad, wrote A New People （Ximnin shuo）， his chapter, “Self-Government,” emphasized the question of local self-government. In 1902 Kang Youwei also published a profound analysis of the question of local self-government in his chapter “The Self-Government of Citizens” （Gongmin zizhi pian） in his Notes on Official institutions （Guanzhi yi）。 Especially between 1903 and 1905, intellectuals from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie greatly stimulated intellectual support for the local self-government movement of the late Qing. “Build schools, send students abroad.” This was the most important feature of the “new policies” that the Qing government put into effect. During the first few years of the twentieth century the number of old schools reformed and new schools established （including official, public, and private institutions） nearly doubled, as did the number of students. The number of students going abroad to study also dramatically increased. In particular, many students who emerged out of the academies or returned from study abroad were influenced by the “Western learning” and “new learning” of capitalism, and their ways of thinking and political views were accordingly transformed. Many youth became bourgeois intellectuals. The transition from feudal literati created a completely new type of intellectual. The emergence of the new type of intellectual group not only augmented the strength of the bourgeoisie but also became the main force for the dissemination of capitalist culture. This had consequences contrary to the hopes the Qing government had initially put in its reform efforts. Students studying abroad in Japan founded a number of student journals that opposed the feudal autocratic rule of the Qing and called for bourgeois democracy. Student journals published a great deal on local self-government and, together with the journals of the Constitutionalists and general interest magazines in China itself, formed the intellectual base for local self-government. Their encouragement and propaganda influenced a broad range of social and political thought. “Local self-government, local self-government riotously fills our ears.”29 “Throughout the nation it has been explained so frequently that all its details are known.”30 Chinese students in Japan tended to favor an anti-Qing revolution at this time. Five beliefs marked their views on local self-government. First, local self-government was a route to staving off disaster and creating a foundation for the nation. The crucial task facing China was to strengthen the country and end its humiliations--to solve the crisis afflicting the nation. Progressive students in Japan held that “local self-government constitutes the basis of the nation in today‘s world” and so local self-government institutions “are the essential means of national salvation.”31 in 1904 Zhengyi tongbao published an article that stated, “There is a method that may solve the crisis facing China today,” namely, “the system of local self-government.” The article also said, “In a country that has long suffered injuries from autocratic rule, all the various methods have advantages and disadvantages: Only local self-government has advantages without disadvantages.”32 In the same year Shibao also pronounced: “Such various ways of saving the nation today as institutional reform, restoring the navy, and building schools have turned into empty and unfulfilled illusions. Putting aside their impracticality, even if they could be instituted, the results would be minimal. Aside from local self-government. what can we do? What can we do?”33 Second, local self-government was a road leading to the development of industry and the strengthening of the nation. The bourgeoisie was primarily concerned with developing capitalist commerce and industry and so promoting its own economic power. Chinese students in Japan argued that local self-government and the development of industry were related. “When local self-government is fully carried out, industry will flourish and national strength rise. Local self-government and industry have an inherently close relationship.” Local industries share a common organization with the local people; therefore, “for the Chinese people to promote industry … those whose purpose is to protect the nation and the race must urgently use the model of local self-government.”34 Local self-government is the system that gives local gentry and merchants the most benefits and the safest opportunities for investment.35 Zhang Jian’s ideas were typical of the perception of local self-government held by gentry and merchants at the time. He said, “The strength of the nation is rooted in self-government, and the roots of self-government lie in industry and education. If we fail to correct our problems, we can only rely on morcy.36 Third, self-government was an absolutely essential part of state administration and should be promoted equally with the bureaucracy. Chinese students in Japan analyzed the relationship between self-government and bureaucracy on a theoretical basis, concluding that there were two kinds of administrative organs in modern states: the central government bureaucracy and local self-rule. Bureaucratic organs gave a country direct administration, and their goal was to sustain national strength directly--such areas as foreign affairs, the military, and finances fell under bureaucratic administration. Self-government organs gave a country indirect administration, and their goal was to seek national administration indirectly, through local people governing such local affairs as education, policing, and all the concerns related to the peace and happiness of the locality. Direct administration was “bureaucratic rule” （guanzhi） and indirect administration was “self-government” （zizhi）。 “Therefore institutions of self-government supplement what bureaucratic rule lacks, and are carried on in mutual support with bureaucratic rule.”37 |